Bexley council - beaten but unrepentant

One of my correspondents told me about the problems his octogenarian
mother-in-law had last year with Bexleys parking gestapo and the consequential
disgraceful behaviour of council officials and councillor Peter Craske - yes,
that one again, the one who put his signature to the plan to make
Abbey Road dangerous for pedestrians,
motorists and nearby residents for no reason other than to improve the lot of
cyclists which his side-kick,
councillor John Davey said
he had never seen on Abbey Road.

The elderly mother-in-law is a church warden and attends her church every Tuesday morning
to help with the mothers and toddlers group. The church is in a Controlled Parking Zone
(CPZ) intended to stop commuters parking all day at the railway station. As with CPZs
elsewhere in Bexley it restricts parking for two hours in the middle of the day, in this
case from 10 a.m. until noon. The only people allowed to park there are residents
who have to pay £35 a year for the privilege plus 70 pence a day for guests.

Fortunately the church has its own off-road parking so our church warden has no
real problem, until that is one of the mothers blocked the entrance to the churchs
car-park with her 4x4. No problem; nip over to the 4x4 and ask the mother to
move along a bit. Problem solved inside 30 seconds. Well not quite. Half a
minute is more than long enough for two gestapo members to emerge from their hiding
place and pounce on the bemused old lady, penalty notice in hand.

The ticket confirms that the time between observation and penalty was no more
than a minute thereby admitting no attempt to check for permitted unloading
activity. The old lady was never out of the gestapos view or more than
ten metres from her car. From reports received from other sources it seems that
hiding and pouncing is Bexleys standard procedure; they deny it but too many
reports confirm it is standard practice.

The lady explains the circumstances to the gestapo and commonsense would suggest
that this unavoidable momentary infringement should not result in a hefty fine but
the parking gestapo are not often people with a social conscience and they are working
for people who are far far worse. Bexley council has given many people the
impression that it encourages the issue of as many tickets
as possible by any devious technique necessary. Fortunately this particular traffic warden
(badge number BL343) agrees to make a note of the extenuating circumstances in her pocket
book to the effect that an appeal should be favourably considered. An informal appeal is
lodged within the hour but four days later it is rejected. Either no note was made in the
pocket book or it was ignored.

A complaint was sent by email to the Parking Manager, Mrs. Tina Brooks, requesting the
name of the appeals adjudicator as neither it nor the job title on the rejection notice
was legible. Without that how is anyone to know if the appeal had reached a properly
authorised person? The email, in line with Bexleys usual practice, was ignored. A
copy was sent to Graham Ward, Deputy Director of Public Relations. He replied to some of
the points made. It revealed that Bexley has 25 traffic wardens, one Parking Manager,
three Parking Officers and 13 Parking Assistants, nearly a 1:1 ratio of officers to foot
soldiers! Some of the staff were claimed to have City & Guilds qualifications but in
what there was no clue.

Further emails were sent to Tina Brooks and Mr. Ward asking for the traffic warden and the
adjudicator involved in this case to be identified and to ask if the warden actually submitted
the promised pocket book report and, if so, why it was ignored by the adjudicator. Both emails
were ignored by our caring listening council. Eventually a Notice to Owner was
issued and the options were to pay the fine or make a formal representation. The seven valid
reasons given for lodging an appeal did not allow for cases of traffic wardens lying or
misleading the parking management team so the only option was to appeal to the independent
adjudicator appointed by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. 28 days are allowed to make
the formal representation and this one was submitted with 25 days to spare.

The next communication from Bexley council was a Charge Certificate issued on the grounds
that no formal representation had been received by the council. Strange! It had been returned
well within the 28 day limit in the supplied pre-printed envelope. Probably Bexley dont
bother observing the niceties of the law, after all we know for a fact
they dont when introducing new CPZs.

Another email of complaint followed with the original scanned representation attached but this
too was rejected, the council conveniently ignoring the fact that appeals are permissible on
various grounds and they are obliged to take the evidence into consideration.

The council responded parrot fashion with the options available at this stage: pay the
inflated fine, wait for them to obtain an Order for Recovery, or write another letter
containing the representations. Another letter immediately went into the recorded delivery
post. A copy was sent by email for good measure. The very next day came a Notice of
Rejection of Formal Representation together with a supposed photocopy of two pages from
the parking attendants notebook plus black and white photographs of the crime
scene. The notes did not include any reference to the promise made by the traffic warden. They
did however contain allegations of ill-temper by the church warden which would have been
totally out of character.

One of the photographs was extremely useful because it showed a discontinuous yellow line
and the other taken by the second traffic warden showed the issuing attendant not wearing
full uniform; it and the broken line both being breaches of the regulations. An email from
the Parking Manager also revealed that the original adjudication was by a Parking Assistant
- the lowest level in the parking hierarchy but once again the name was withheld. Why are
public servants allowed to hide behind anonymity?

Bexley council refused to communicate on the issues in the photographs, presumably they
prefer to profit from their many mistakes with yellow lines and possibly even the uniforms.
So the appeal went to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. While awaiting developments
two local councillors were made aware of the case. Only one answered, Simon Windle who
represents Barnehurst ward. He tried to opt out because he said councillors are not allowed
to intervene in parking infringement cases. When it was pointed out that the issue was being
raised not to seek help in overturning the ticket but to ask general questions relating to
illegal punishment of motorists (viz. inadequate lines and signs), he passed the matter to
Bexleys cabinet member for transport - councillor Peter Craske. Craske made it clear
he didnt like attempts to expose dubious council practises. Corrupt and dishonest
councils revel in their ability to snoop and interfere in almost every aspect of our lives
but they dont like to hear the truth about themselves. Craske got into a wild rage
instead of taking the complaint seriously.

Councillor Windle then passed the case and requests for more information to Bexleys
Communications Officer, Mr. John Ferry under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). The
request appeared to be ignored despite the law calling for a response within 20 working days,
however 76 working days later came a response; a Public Interest Refusal Notice under
Section 22 of the Act - the grounds being that the council was not compelled to provide
any information prior to the appeal submission. It was suggested that any request for
information was sent to councillor Peter Craske - the useless individual who had refused
to answer questions in the first place.

The appeal hearing was eventually set for 8th September 2008, some six months after the
incident and defence papers were submitted at the beginning of May with copies to
Bexley council. Councils are supposed to send a copy of their own case to the appellant
within three weeks but despite repeated requests Bexley were more than three months late
and posted them five days before the hearing. Once again Bexley council showing their
total disregard for the law. The contemptible use of second class post ensured delivery
on the Saturday before the Monday morning hearing.

Almost needless to say, Bexleys defence was primarily an attempt at character
assassination and allegations of submission of representations etc. outside of time
limits. The usual lame excuse of vexatious correspondence
was trotted out several times, one of Bexleys favourite escape hatches when faced
with difficult questions. They also alleged a failure to follow procedure relating to advice
given under the F.O.I., neatly ignoring the fact that both the council and councillor Craske
refused to answer questions.

The adjudicator at the hearing was Mr. Carl Teper () and he decided that it was probable that
Bexleys CPZ did not meet statutory requirements. i.e. it was illegal. It wasdisappointing
that Mr. Teper was not interested in the state of the yellow lines and their missing
terminations etc. nor in traffic wardens who lie, but I suppose that once a reason is found to
dismiss a dishonest councils case there is pressure to get on with the next one rather
than pursue every facet of the councils dishonesty. Understandable perhaps but it is how
people like Tina Brooks and councillor Craske get away with things unscathed.

November 2009

 I have been informed by the founder of the website
appealnow.com that Mr.
Teper was not only taking the simplest practical course in terminating the appeal at the earliest
opportunity but he was also correct in law. Once an adjudicator has established
that a C.P.Z. is in effect illegal that is apparently the end of the matter
irrespective of any malpractice by Bexley council and their various petty bureaucrats.